FifteenEightyFour | Cambridge University Press » Psychologyhttp://www.cambridgeblog.org
The Official Blog of Cambridge University PressFri, 24 May 2019 10:41:53 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.3.1Getting Past Stigma to Increase Social Connectionhttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/05/getting-past-stigma-to-increase-social-connection/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/05/getting-past-stigma-to-increase-social-connection/#commentsThu, 09 May 2019 16:34:18 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=29468In recent years there has been growing consensus that facilitating “community participation” among mental health service recipients should be a major goal for the mental health service system. Defined as “the opportunity to live in the community, and be valued for one’s uniqueness and abilities, like everyone else,” social connection with local or other community members is a major component of community participation by any definition.

It may seem obvious that the mental health service system should want to facilitate community participation among the people that it is charged with helping, but in many ways this runs counter to long-standing tradition. Notably, the asylum model, which dominated mental health services from the early 19th century until the middle 20th century, which was based on the idea that people with mental health problems needed to be completely removed from general community life in order to get better. Although asylums no longer dominate the service system, other forms of residential and social segregation still predominate in the organization of services. Beyond this, many professionals, trained to only focus on symptom reduction, learned to advise their patients to “avoid stress,” including social relationships, leading many people with mental health conditions to believe that social connection is hazardous to one’s health. Going further (as I discuss in my recent book, Written Off), concern about stigma, or the negative stereotypes that community members hold, can have a powerful impact on community participation. This occurs as people who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses become impacted by both “stigma concern” (assuming that they would be discredited by others if their mental health diagnoses were known), and “self-stigma” (incorporating negative views about mental illness into their identity and believing that people with mental illness cannot handle social relationships or are not worthy of them). Both stigma concern and self-stigma can be powerful driving forces behind the all-too-common social isolation experienced by people diagnosed with mental illnesses.

So, what can be done to change this? Certainly, anti-stigma campaigns, such as the UK’s Time to Change effort, can send a message of inclusion that may encourage community members to show more support, and people with mental health conditions to open up and seek more social connection. Although this approach shows promise, it is likely that it will be many years for broad positive social messages to start to impact disclosure behavior among people diagnosed with mental illnesses (and there is presently no evidence that anti-stigma campaigns impact stigma concern or self-stigma).

Small steps can lead to bigger changes, so let’s all commit to doing our part to facilitate inclusive communities for people with mental health conditions!

One approach that already exists and that needs to be expanded lies in service-user led support settings, known as “consumer-operated drop-in centers” in the US. These settings are run by service users allow people with mental health concerns to attend meetings, give and get support, as well as informally socialize. A small proportion of recipients of mental health services currently make use of these types of services, however, because there are unfortunately not enough of them available (e.g., I know of only 3 such settings in New York City, with its over 8 million inhabitants). Internet based peer support communities (for example, the Icarus Project), can allow people to get social support from others across great distances and therefore hold promise. However, as important as internet-based social connections can be, I feel that the jury is still out on whether they can take the place of “face-to-face” social connections.

Another step, which could be a component of anti-stigma campaigns, lies in the nurturing of “inclusive communities” (a concept discussed by British human rights advocate Liz Sayce). Inclusive communities are not only tolerant of difference, but give an explicit message of inclusion through the way that they are structured. There are many forms that these types of communities can take, but they might include community centers, public events, non-profit bookstores/ cafes, or other “third places” that anyone can feel free to walk into. Messages of inclusion can be expressed in a number of ways, but symbols (analogous to the rainbow flag which is now widely recognized as a message of support for the LGBTQ community) can be used to express a “mental health positive” stance. Beyond symbolism, the involvement of enough people who are open about their mental health histories can lead there to be a “tipping point” facilitating greater openness. Disclosure, in turn, can lead to a sense of relief and can both decrease self and community stigma, as others see their preconceptions about what a person with a mental illness “looks like” challenged. I have experienced how this operates myself in public events that I have organized, where many I have found that many individuals decide to spontaneously disclose their psychiatric histories as a result of a general atmosphere of acceptance.

Small steps can lead to bigger changes, so let’s all commit to doing our part to facilitate inclusive communities for people with mental health conditions!

To support Mental Health Awareness Month Cambridge University Press have curated a collection of free work across a variety of related topics – view the full collection at www.cambridge.org/MHAM19

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/05/getting-past-stigma-to-increase-social-connection/feed/0CNS Spectrums supports Mental Health Awareness Monthhttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/04/cns-spectrums-supports-mental-health-awareness-month/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/04/cns-spectrums-supports-mental-health-awareness-month/#commentsMon, 29 Apr 2019 08:31:45 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=29438I have the privilege of editing the journal known as CNS Spectrums, which gives me a great vantage point to view the progress and developments in the field of mental health, especially in areas where we focus, such as the neurobiological basis of the more serious mental illnesses and their treatments, for example of schizophrenia, mania, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and others. There have been some startling advances and some disappointments in the past year. The good news is the FDA approval of an inhaled form of an antidepressant, esketamine, Spravato, for patients who do not respond to other antidepressants. Spravato has a rapid onset, and has to be given in the doctor’s office. It may also help rapidly relieve suicidal thoughts in patients with serious depression. Another FDA approval is for the treatment of postpartum depression, in women who have just delivered a baby. The drug is brexanolone, Zulresson, which is given as an intravenous infusion for 60 hours, with rapid and sustained benefit, faster and more effective than other treatments. Postpartum depression can be associated with serious disability, even suicide, and difficulty bonding with the newborn baby. Other advances include new treatments for a complication of antipsychotic use, namely a movement disorder called tardive dyskinesia (Ingressa and Austedo).

On another note, there is increasing appreciation that opioid addiction should be treated with medications, not just rehab and cold turkey, for best results (medication assisted treatment with buprenorphine or a long acting injection of naltrexone). A big disappointment seems to be the failure of the amyloid theory of Alzheimer’s Disease and of every treatment that targets amyloid, taking us back to the drawing board to try to find what is wrong with this dementia that we can target to stop or prevent it.

In the meantime, the good news is that new treatments are on the horizon for some of the behavioral symptoms of dementia such as agitation and psychosis. Finally, we have learned more about the neurotransmitter dopamine and its newly targeted receptor, the D3 receptor. New guidelines for how to assess cognition are also in hand for various psychiatric disorders, published this year. Finally, we even published a special issue on evil, psychiatry, and terrorism, asking whether terrorism is a psychiatric disorder and proposing that it is not, but is instead a form of evil. Many of these topics are covered in a recurring feature in our journal called Brainstorms, and we look forward to another exciting year of advances in the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses.

CNS Spectrums covers all aspects of the clinical neurosciences, neurotherapeutics, and neuropsychopharmacology, particularly those pertinent to the clinician and clinical investigator.

You can read the latest articles on mental health from CNS Spectrums as well as book chapters and journal articles in this subject area here. Free access to all content is available for the entire month of May 2019.

Cambridge University Press have curated a collection of free work across a variety of related topics – view the full collection at www.cambridge.org/MHAM19

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/04/cns-spectrums-supports-mental-health-awareness-month/feed/0Beyond Obedience?http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/03/beyond-obedience/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/03/beyond-obedience/#commentsTue, 19 Mar 2019 11:58:08 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=29092Look in any social psychology textbook and you’ll see that obedience is defined as a form of social influence elicited in response to direct orders. New research on the most (in)famous studies of obedience has begun to challenge this definition.

obedience refers to a more diffuse process of subordination to authority through which we come to abide by social conventions

Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience to authority are amongst the most famous – and controversial – studies in the social sciences. As generations of psychology students have been taught, they supposedly show how ordinary Americans could be led into inflicting what appeared to be severe pain on another member of the public simply as a result of following orders from an experimenter.

In recent years, however, something of a revolution has taken place in our understanding of Milgram’s experiments. Scholars have drawn on the treasure trove of material held in Milgram’s archive at Yale University in order to highlight a number of hitherto unknown aspects of his work. My own research has focused in particular on the audio recordings of Milgram’s experimental sessions. The ‘findings’ from the obedience experiments have typically been understood in terms of the proportion of participants in the various conditions who completed the experimental procedure without disobeying the experimenter’s orders. However, what has fascinated me is the much more complex and messy story to be told about how the experiments unfolded in practice. What did obedience and defiance actually involve? How did some participants argue their way out of the experiments? And how did the experimenter get many others to keep going?

Traditionally, the answer to this last question has been seen as uncontroversial: the experimenter had a series of standardised prods with which to order participants to keep administering electric shocks to the victim whenever he made a mistake on a memory test. However, when we listen to the tapes of the experiments, it is clear that the experimenter didn’t stick to these prods. Moreover, the prods – especially those that appear to be the most order-like – are actually pretty ineffective at getting participants to keep going.

The conclusion is therefore quite startling: participants don’t obey orders in Milgram’s obedience experiments. When the experimenter did issue orders, participants were able to disobey them quite straightforwardly; and those participants who went ‘all the way’ in the experiment didn’t actually need to be issued with orders. This turns on its head almost 60 years of received wisdom about these experiments.

But does this mean that the experiments are not about obedience after all? If we stick to the standard definition of obedience as social influence elicited in response to orders, then it certainly would. However, we might be wise to look again at this definition. When we talk about ‘obeying the law’, we’re not typically referring to situations in which we’ve been given commands from a police officer. Rather, obedience refers to a more diffuse process of subordination to authority through which we come to abide by social conventions.

So how, then, did a large number of people find themselves going along with Milgram’s experimental procedure? In my book, Arguing, Obeying and Defying: A Rhetorical Perspective on Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiments, I argue that rather than being ordered by an authority figure, we might instead say that participants were persuaded by the situation: by the impressive experimental apparatus, by the attachment to a prestigious university, and by the implied authority of the scientific endeavour. No orders were needed when the experimental set-up did its job; and when participants were no longer persuaded by the set-up, the orders from the experimenter only made things worse: far from being a demonstration of the power of authority, they were a sign of its weakness.

‘Stephen Gibson’s superb book looks at social psychology’s most famous experiment. By closely examining what actually occurred, Gibson shows that Milgram’s obedience studies were not really about obedience. In focusing on Milgram, Gibson offers a sophisticated, original analysis of social psychology itself.’ Michael Billig, Emeritus Professor, Loughborough University

‘This book provides a wealth of new insights into classic studies and is a compelling read for all those interested in the psychology of obedience. Stephen Gibson invites us to reconsider what is often taken for granted as established knowledge, and makes an excellent case for a social psychology that focuses on the detail of social interaction.’ Chris McVittie, Queen Margaret University

‘In this exhaustively researched and carefully argued volume, Stephen Gibson provides a compelling reappraisal of one of psychology’s best-known experiments and the disciplinary practice of social psychology. He effectively demonstrates that the obedience study was not a demonstration of ‘blind obedience’, as is often claimed, but an exercise in rhetoric and persuasion.’ Ian Nicholson, Editor, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences

‘If you thought there was nothing more to be learned from Milgram’s obedience experiments conducted over fifty years ago, Stephen Gibson’s rigorous forensic analysis of the archived audio recordings of these infamous experiments challenges how we should view them. Using theoretical principles from discursive and rhetorical psychology, Gibson details the rhetorical and argumentative interactions that test the standard story told in textbooks. Invoking Protagoras’s maxim that there are always two sides to every story, Gibson also warns us not to summarily dismiss Milgram’s findings either. A must-read for all social psychologists and their students.’ Martha Augoustinos, University of Adelaide, Australia

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/03/beyond-obedience/feed/0Reclaiming the Joy of Eating and Striving for Positive Body Imagehttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/03/reclaiming-the-joy-of-eating-and-striving-for-positive-body-image/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/03/reclaiming-the-joy-of-eating-and-striving-for-positive-body-image/#commentsWed, 06 Mar 2019 09:11:44 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=28863“One of the very best things about life is the way we must regularly stop whatever it is we are doing and devote our attention to eating.”

~Luciano Pavarotti

We are all subject to cultural prescriptions about how we should eat and what we should weigh. Some of these prescriptions come in the form of “food rules” or norms in terms of the times of day that we eat, how much we eat, or times when we should not eat (e.g., before swimming or sleeping). For example, most of us probably think of a cheeseburger as a lunch or dinner food and pancakes as a breakfast food. Swapping these would seem strange to us (especially the cheeseburger for breakfast!).

We also experience countless cultural messages about body weight. For several decades, slenderness for women has been idealized and individuals who are overweight or obese have been stigmatized. For example, studies have shown that individuals who are overweight or obese are stigmatized in work, education, and personal relationship contexts (e.g., dating). These negative attitudes toward overweight and obesity are based on socially constructed norms in contemporary Western cultures, like the United States and Europe. Larger body sizes have been considered attractive in other time periods in history, and in other cultures (ones where there is a scarcity of resources so having more food, and therefore, more weight, is a sign of wealth and prosperity). So, the expectation that everyone should be thin, or else strive for it, is a product of our culture. This expectation is unfair and can be harmful to individuals’ mental and physical well-being; some research suggests that up to 13% of girls will experience an eating disorder by the age of 20. Bodies naturally come in various sizes and shapes. This point is highlighted in this year’s National Eating Disorders Awareness Week’s Theme: Come As You Are.

Unfortunately, narrow cultural norms don’t take into account what would be healthiest for us, as individuals, to eat or weigh. Further, as norms, they are insensitive to individuals’ unique needs and desires. And, yet, we all come with genetic predispositions that lend themselves to particular body sizes and shapes and even particular appetites and food preferences. Getting in touch with our own personal needs and preferences may be advantageous for a variety of reasons.

One way to get more in touch with our own eating and weight inclinations is to focus on eating intuitively, which entails listening to the body’s hunger cues and responding appropriately. That may involve eating or not eating at non-standard times. Intuitive eating is so important because it allows us to pay attention to what our body actually needs, not what social and media messages tell us our body needs. For some, this may be 2,000 calories a day. For others, it may be 4,000. These needs are different for different people and may also change over time for the same person. Intuitive eating ignores food fads and diet trends that often prescribe what we should be eating (e.g., no brownies!) and when we should be eating (e.g., no eating after 7pm!). We eat when we are hungry, and stop when we are full. Yet, this does not mean that we should eat whatever we want whenever we want; we should be thoughtful about these decisions. When we feel hungry, for example, we may want to satisfy that hunger with a piece of fruit and/or cheese rather than a few cookies. This does not suggest that cookies are bad, however. Sometimes cookies are what our bodies crave. It’s okay to indulge that craving, so long as we are not eating cookies all the time. A healthy body size is the desired outcome of intuitive eating.

Intuitive eating may sound easy, but it may not always be, especially if we are used to eating (or avoiding) certain foods, and eating at specific times. It’s a skill that can be practiced with some effort, and will get easier over time. Scientists who have conducted interventions to help people learn to eat intuitively have found that intuitive eating benefits both physical and psychological health. If you’re like many people, you may spend a fair amount of time and energy thinking about what you are going to eat – even worrying about what you are going to eat – but eating intuitively could give you a lot of that time, or at least the energy you spend worrying, back.

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/03/reclaiming-the-joy-of-eating-and-striving-for-positive-body-image/feed/0Fast Sex; Slow Love – Courtship in the Digital Agehttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/02/fast-sex-slow-love-courtship-in-the-digital-age/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/02/fast-sex-slow-love-courtship-in-the-digital-age/#commentsWed, 27 Feb 2019 11:24:35 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=28776Is technology killing love? Has the world run wild on sex? Have romance and marriage gone the way of the dinosaurs? Today, some 66% of single Americans have had a one-night-stand; 34% have had sex with someone before their first date; 54% have had a secretive, uncommitted Friends-with-Benefits relationship; and 56% of singles have lived together with a partner before they wed. Sounds reckless. And many people blame the Internet—where, they believe, sex is just one swipe away on a dating app and romance and commitment are ghosts of yesteryear.

But data collected as part of an annual study I do with Match.com and my colleague Dr. Justin Garcia on a national representative sample of over 35,000 single adults (known as Singles in America) has convinced me that today’s singles are not reckless; they’re cautious, perhaps even scared.Indeed, some 67% of American cohabiting couples today are terrified of the social, legal, emotional, and economic consequences of divorce. So they appear to want to know everything about a potential partner before they invest their time, money and energy to initiate a formal commitment to him or her.

As a result, a new courtship process is emerging. Many singles begin a relationship by “hanging out” as “just friends.” Next, they move into being Friends-with-Benefits. Only later do many have an “official” first date. Then gradually they begin to live together before wedding. Fast Sex; Slow love: the pre-commitment stage of the courtship process is expanding. But romantic love is still in full bloom. Over 54% of American singles believe in “love at first sight;” 86% seek a committed partner with whom they can spend their life; and 89% believe you can stay married to the same person forever. Moreover, some reports maintain that 83% of men and 89% of women in America will marry by age forty-nine.

Even modern “dating sites” can’t kill love. The neural pathways for romance lie in the deepest part of the brain, near factories that orchestrate thirst and hunger. It’s a primordial human drive–a drive to find life’s greatest prize, a mating partner. Myths; legends; songs; stories; novels; plays; ballets; operas; holidays: everywhere in the world people still pine for love, live for love, kill for love and die for love. Romantic love is one of the most powerful brain systems humanity has evolved–and it won’t change as singles meet on the Internet.

In fact, dating sites aren’t even dating sites. They are introducing sites. When singles meet a potential partner in person, they smile, laugh, parade and judge this potential mate in natural ways that evolved long before the Digital Age. The Internet is just the newest way to do the same old human thing: flirt, court and bond. But where marriage used to be the beginning of a partnership, today it’s the finale.

And from the evolutionary perspective, slow love is adaptive—because the human brain is soft-wired to attach to a partner slowly. Using fMRI, my brain scanning colleagues and I have established that the neural circuits for romantic love can be triggered instantly; but the primary circuit for deep attachment can take months, sometimes years, to activate. Slow love is in alignment with our primordial brain circuits for romance and attachment.

With this trend toward slow love, partnerships may become more stable too. Data on 80 societies that I have collected from the Demographic Yearbooks of the United Nations between 1947 and 2011 indicate that the later you marry, the more likely you are to remain married. A study of over 3,000 married people in the US found that couples who dated for one to two years, (compared to those who dated less than a year), were 20% less likely to get a divorce; and couples who dated for three years or longer were 39% less likely to later part. And when I asked 1,095 married Americans (polled with my colleagues at Match) whether they would remarry the person they were currently married to, 81% said: “Yes.”

Love is not dead; courtship is not ruined; and sex has not replaced emotional intimacy. Today’s singles are simply turning inward–taking time to court, pair and wed. In fact, with the current marriage revolution toward slow love, we may see more happy and enduring partnerships in the Digital Age.

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/02/fast-sex-slow-love-courtship-in-the-digital-age/feed/0The Need has Never Been Greater!: The Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Community Engagement and Outreachhttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/12/the-need-has-never-been-greater-the-cambridge-handbook-of-organizational-community-engagement-and-outreach/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/12/the-need-has-never-been-greater-the-cambridge-handbook-of-organizational-community-engagement-and-outreach/#commentsMon, 03 Dec 2018 15:36:35 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=28151In fact, we would go so far as to say that the moment is now for organizations to reach out, lift, and serve in the communities where they are embedded. Frankly, this is more than being socially responsible, but rather a means by which organizations further embed themselves in the identity of the community. The more people in the community identify, engage with, and recognize one’s organization as a supporting agent for the well-being of the individuals and families in the community, the more they will reciprocate by supporting the organization. This is basic social exchange theory and reciprocity, and it’s worked for ages in building, establishing, and reinforcing both organizations and communities.

Thus, our reason for producing this volume and pulling in some of the greatest minds in community engagement was to accomplish three overarching aims:

Show how universities and communities can partner together for their mutually beneficial goal accomplishment

Provide examples of how this fits within and connects across disciplinary boundaries, referring to academic and industry boundaries

Demonstrate that leading community engagement and outreach efforts requires attention and detail oriented leaders

Across these areas, the chapters are written to both intrigue the calculating theory-driven academic and inspire the organizational leader and practitioner. As the examples and stories quickly show, it takes both. It takes the academics who recognize the importance in community building and the expertise of community leaders to sit down, listen, and engage with them. It also takes the community leaders being responsive to the inquiries from academics, recognizing the time investment that may be required, and allowing the potential opportunities to emerge over time. A great level of patience is required by both parties to foster the safe sharing environment thereby recognizing the competencies of both groups as the mutually beneficial opportunity emerges via conversation, exploration, and eventual dedication. In the end, this volume is about how to do the community engagement and outreach efforts in a way to maximize the mutually beneficial outcomes while setting the groundwork for a longer-term fruitful community for all to enjoy.

‘This Handbook is a must read for students, faculty, community members and other key stakeholders. It presents best practices and examples of university-community partnerships and the importance of community engaged research. Outreach and community engagement efforts are where universities should be investing their time if social change is to take place.” – Rhonda K. Lewis, Wichita State University

“This is an outstanding compendium of knowledge and best practices for faculty, administrators, and managers in organizations who want to have impact on their communities through partnership and collaboration. Interdisciplinary in scope and broad in perspective, this is an inspiring read that offers key insights and suggestions for making the most of community and engagement and outreach. It is a must-have resource for everyone who wants to make a difference in their community.” – Tammy D. Allen, University of South Florida.

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/12/the-need-has-never-been-greater-the-cambridge-handbook-of-organizational-community-engagement-and-outreach/feed/0Flipping the switch: How technology can help to prevent and address bullyinghttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/11/flipping-the-switch-how-technology-can-help-to-prevent-and-address-bullying/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/11/flipping-the-switch-how-technology-can-help-to-prevent-and-address-bullying/#commentsWed, 14 Nov 2018 10:32:23 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=28060Bullying during childhood and adolescence has captured the attention of policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and citizens around the globe, bringing increased attention to this important issue. As a result, there has been an uptick in policies, research, and school-based programming related to its prevention. While research provides some clear guidance about how schools can better prevent and respond to instances of bullying, there remains a gap when it comes to the implementation of “’best practices” in schools. Prevention programming that integrates technology may be one way to fill this gap. Specifically, by helping to promote and optimize the dissemination of best practices in education, technology may serve as an important tool in increasing positive social and emotional development and reducing bullying – over and above traditional low-tech approaches.

Our recent book chapter, currently available through Cambridge, highlights several different technological modalities that aim to bolster the impact of school-based bullying prevention and social emotional development programming. For example, we cite examples of how technology can be utilized to collect data about the occurrence of bullying in schools through school-based discipline data collection; annual surveys that can provide detailed information such as location ‘hot spots’ for bullying; or providing a live vehicle for students and parents to report instances of bullying as they occur. Technology can also be used in public health campaigns to educate teens and adults about the harms of bullying and strategies for helping out youth who are the targets of bullying.

…the use of mixed-reality such as the TeachLivE interface, has been shown to be a safe and low risk environment for teachers to practice how to prevent, detect, and respond to bullying in the classroom under the support of a skilled bullying prevention “coach”.

Another potential use of technology is to help train teachers and other school staff to stop bullying in real time. As described in the chapter, the use of mixed-reality such as the TeachLivE interface, has been shown to be a safe and low risk environment for teachers to practice how to prevent, detect, and respond to bullying in the classroom under the support of a skilled bullying prevention “coach”. Online games can also be leveraged to make instruction and assessment of student knowledge and skills more novel and engaging for students.

Although there has been progress in the development, testing, and use of technology to address bullying in schools, it is important to remember that bullying is systemic and, at least in the U.S. and UK, has become part of school culture – even in the broader media and political context. As a result, there are no quick fixes. While technology-based tools can potentially enhance programming and increase interest/buy-in, if research-based prevention programming is not used consistently in schools and communities, we won’t make a dent in this challenging issue. Much of the progress in schools is incremental, no single technology will be transformative – comprehensive approaches are needed to address complex issues like bullying. Further, technology can be resource intensive and educators may not always feel comfortable engaging with or facilitating the use of technology with students. It is also important to consider that sometimes the novelty of technology comes at the expense of utility or effectiveness – the field needs greater attention to this issue to minimize this tension.

On the other hand, technology is powerful. Its novelty, particularly for youth, makes it engaging and acceptable in ways that traditional instructional approaches to prevention programming has not. It may take some of the onus in providing the prevention curriculum off of school-based staff, when used as a direct intervention with students. Similarly, technology can offer a structure and tailoring to individual needs, for example through the use of artificial intelligence, that may not be achievable or scalable when school staff need to find time in the school day to facilitate bullying programming. For example, as part of a forthcoming study in the new International Journal of Bullying Prevention, we have shown that coaching teachers using the TeachLivE simulator can reduce bullying and problem behaviors in classrooms. Through this technology, teachers also shared that they gained insight that only through connecting with students – both socially and emotionally — they experienced improvements in students’ behavior in the classroom. The teachers also reported that the simulator gave them the ability to see more subtle bullying behaviors (such as whispering, notes being passed), and practice how to intervene. For example one teacher noted that “I assumed it was normal middle school behavior…. but now I see it as bullying and it dawned on me that’s bullying…. I should do something about that.” Another teacher said that addressing the victim [of the bullying] was an ‘aha’ moment and remarked that this technology enabled me to “practice how to talk to the victim and that has translated into [improvements in] the classroom.”

Regardless of which technological approach is used, it is important to remember that bullying goes beyond focusing on the victim and the perpetrator; it is about relationships and how individuals treat one another.

Several of the technology-based programs highlighted in the The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression show promise for improving how schools address bullying. Regardless of which technological approach is used, it is important to remember that bullying goes beyond focusing on the victim and the perpetrator; it is about relationships and how individuals treat one another. Therefore, relationships between youth and their peers, the relationship between those that experience bullying and those that witness it, the relationship between the youth and the adults who spend much of the weekday with them, will all be extremely important to incorporate into any bullying prevention.

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/11/flipping-the-switch-how-technology-can-help-to-prevent-and-address-bullying/feed/0Instead of focusing on how to cope with bullying, we need to think about how to end ithttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/11/instead-of-focusing-on-how-to-cope-with-bullying-we-need-to-think-about-how-to-end-it/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/11/instead-of-focusing-on-how-to-cope-with-bullying-we-need-to-think-about-how-to-end-it/#commentsTue, 13 Nov 2018 16:58:29 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=28037People around the world face discrimination based on their gender, race, sexuality, weight or age, among other characteristics. Being a victim of discrimination is associated with a range of negative outcomes. For example, sexual minorities (e.g., lesbian, gay, and bisexual people) are at higher risk of suicidality, substance misuse and self-harm compared to heterosexual individuals (King et al., 2008). Likewise, experiencing discrimination on the basis of race is associated with a range of mental health outcomes including depression, psychological distress and anxiety (Paradies, 2006). Moving to appearance based discrimination, being stigmatised on the basis of weight can result in binge eating episodes (Ashmore, Friedman, Reichmann, & Musante, 2008) or avoidance of exercise (Vartanian & Shaprow, 2008).

When we think of discrimination we often think of extreme or obvious examples – hate crimes, for example, or unfair hiring decisions. But every day discrimination is typically more subtle, and insidious, taking the form of cruel jokes, social ostracism, and teasing. In short, much discriminatory behaviour could go by another name: bullying.

Being bullied is a heartbreaking experience, often with dire consequences. Understandably, then, we devote a lot of time ensuring that our loved ones are not facing bullying, and that they have the resources necessary to cope with bullying if or when they face it. But just like the victims of bullying are linked to us, so too are the bullies – they may be our colleagues, friends, spouses, or children.

So what do we do if we suspect that someone close to us is bullying others?

It is much harder to think about our loved one as perpetrators, than as victims. It is, however, crucial if we are going to make our society kinder, and fairer. So what do we do if we suspect that someone close to us is bullying others? First, it is important to recognise that you can reject someone’s behaviour without rejecting them. The goal here is to reduce the bullying, not the person.

As stated above, almost anyone can engage in bullying. One developmental stage where bullying is particularly evident, however, is in childhood. Below we provide some useful information about what to do if you suspect that your child (or niece or nephew or grandchild) is engaging in bullying.

Maintain open communication with your child

It’s important to encourage discussion about school with your child, as research shows asking children about various aspects of their school life (e.g., friends or feelings) can lead to open up about any concerns regarding bullying (Lovegrove, Bellmore, Green, Jens, & Ostrov, 2013). A lack of communication often leads parents unaware of their child’s experiences with bullying (Harcourt, Jaspere, & Green, 2014), and as a result, majority of them underestimate the extent their child is involved with bullying (Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener, 2006).

Communicate with the school to combat bullying

If you believe your child may be a bully, report this to the school so teachers can be aware of this and prevent further bullying instances. Taking bullying seriously sends a message to your child that this behaviour is not OK, and that you take it seriously. Even if you are unsure if your child may be a bully, it can be useful to regularly communicate with your child’s school as it has been found parents are not always informed about bullying incidents that may be occurring (Harcourt et al., 2014).

Try and understand why your child is bullying others

Your child could be a bully-victim, meaning they are both a victim and bully (Haynie et al., 2001). Alternatively, bullying can be a sign of underlying behavioural problems. Bullies tend to score lower on behavioural conduct measures (Austin & Joseph, 1996) and cooperation (Rigby, Cox, & Black, 1997). The underlying cause of the bullying will guide the solution: do you need to increase your child’s empathy or work with them to deal with other issues? Ideally, confronting bullying in your child will not only be beneficial for their victim/s, but also your child and family.

Set an example of kindness and respect

Children learn from their parents so it is important for parents to model positive communication, and nonaggressive conflict resolution strategies (Lovegrove et al., 2013). The latter is especially important as a distinctive characteristic of bullies is their positive attitude towards aggression and violence (Olweus, 1994).

At this point we can scan back out, and return to the original issue. Just as children look to their parents to work out how to behave in the world, so too do we look to our peers, bosses, friends, and even leaders. The way that we treat people that are different to ourselves will not only impact them, but help to shape our broader group’s treatment of difference. We all have a decision to make about who we want to be in the world. In the case of bullying, it is about not turning a blind eye, speaking up for those who cannot speak up for themselves, and working to unflinchingly ensure that we, our loved ones, and our wider communities are treating all people with compassion, kindness, and fairness.

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/11/instead-of-focusing-on-how-to-cope-with-bullying-we-need-to-think-about-how-to-end-it/feed/0Bullying, Social Exclusion, and Intimate Partner Violencehttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/11/bullying-social-exclusion-and-intimate-partner-violence/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/11/bullying-social-exclusion-and-intimate-partner-violence/#commentsSun, 11 Nov 2018 14:57:25 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=28012Whether in politics, in the workplace, or on school playgrounds, bullying and aggression are relatively widespread in the United States. For instance, according to the Cyberbullying Research Center over a third of middle and high school students (circa 2016) have been victims of cyberbullying (Patchen, 2016). An even higher proportion of adults (41 per cent) in a Pew Research Center survey reported that they have been harassed online (Duggan, 2017). According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2017), on average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States—more than 12 million women and men over the course of a year. Bullying and aggressive acts are common not only in the United States but elsewhere in the world as well.

Bullying is intentional, unwanted aggressive behavior that often humiliates a weaker person

Bullying is intentional, unwanted aggressive behavior that often humiliates a weaker person (for definitions see Center for Disease Control, 2018; Cornell, D., & Bandyopadhyay, 2010; Olweus, 2013). Bullying may be physical (e.g., kicking, hitting), emotional (e.g., name calling, verbal or written threats), or social (e.g., excluding or embarrassing someone, spreading rumors). The same person can be a perpetrator, a victim, or both. Social scientists have extensively studied bullying in youths, especially in school settings. However, it can also occur in adults and overlaps with social exclusion (Leary & Acosta, 2018) and some forms of intimate partner violence (IPV, Arriaga, Cobb, & Daly, 2018).

Intimate partner violence occurs when one partner in a close relationship aims to harm another using physically and/or emotionally aggressive behavior. In the context of personal relationships, such aggressive, violent behavior has been described by Michael Johnson (1995, 2006) as falling into three categories. The category that most people probably think of when they refer to violent or abusive behavior is called intimate terrorism (IT). IT tends to be severe, frequent, and one-sided. Individuals who inflict this type of violent behavior on their partner are doing so to maintain power and control in their relationship. The second category of intimate partner violence is labelled situational couple violence (SCV). In contrast to IT, SCV typically emerges as a part of heated conflicts or negative interactions. It varies in severity, may be initiated by one or both partners, and can be a one-time event or an ongoing pattern of behavior. The third category of IPV is violent resistance (VR). VR is aggressive behavior employed by victims of IT in an attempt to defend themselves or retaliate against a perpetrator. While VR can help victims escape aggressive behavior, it also can increase the risk that they will experience even more violence and aggression at the hands of their partner.

Because the outcomes of aggressive behavior can be severe and long-lasting, researchers have examined some of the processes that instigate bullying and violence. Eli Finkel (Finkel & Hall, 2018) has offered an I3 behavioral meta-model suggesting that aggression as well as other behaviors stem from three processes: Impellance, Instigation, and Inhibition. Impellance factors are predisposing conditions that create a readiness to respond aggressively (e.g., cultural norms, dispositional qualities such as anger or jealousy, poor social skills). Instigation factors are triggering circumstances or events (e.g., an argument, a partner’s infidelity, envy). Inhibition factors oppose or override the urge to aggress (e.g., cultural disapproval of intimate partner violence, dispositional self-control, relationship commitment). From Finkel’s perspective, bullying and IPV are most likely when the first two Is, impellance and instigation, are strong and inhibition is weak. Finkel’s perspective focuses on the perpetrator. We also know that with both aggression and bullying, victim factors can play a role. For instance students who are less popular, lower in self-esteem or have a minority sexual orientation are at elevated risk for being bullied (Katzer, Fetchenhauer, & Belschak, 2009).

One of the questions about intimate partner abuse is what percentage of victims remain in their relationships and what predicts their decisions. One study following women over two and a half years found that slightly over half stayed, with about 60 per cent of them experiencing continued abuse (Campbell, Miller, Cardwell, & Belknap, 1994). Caryl Rusbult’s classic investment model has been used to successfully predict who stays (Rusbult & Martz, 1995). According to that model, the more victims have invested in their relationship (e.g., the number of children), the more committed they are to their partner (e.g., their intention to remain), and the fewer the alternatives they have (e.g., poor economic circumstances on their own), the more likely victims are to stay. In this and other studies (Anderson & Saunders, 2003), commitment and poor economic circumstances associated with leaving have predicted staying.

Not surprisingly, staying in a relationship that involves physical, emotional, or social aggression has negative consequences (Coker et al., 2002). The consequences, like the aggression itself, may be physical, emotional, or social. For instance, while victims of physical aggression are at risk for physical injuries, health problems, and even death, they also tend to be emotionally distressed, depressed, and anxious. Victims of emotional aggression may not end up with physical injuries, but the ongoing stress and emotional pain they experience often leaves them with poor health and other physical symptoms. Like those who are physically abused, they are likely to suffer emotional distress, depression, and anxiety. Similarly, individuals who experience social aggression – who are ostracized or excluded from a social group – tend to report physical symptoms, depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem (Leary & Acosta, 2018).

While the outlook for victims of bullying and aggression is bleak, it is noteworthy that a number of factors affect the degree to which victims experience negative outcomes. For instance, the severity of aggression and the length of time victims are abused both impact victims’ well-being. If the aggression is relatively mild (shoving as opposed to beating) and if it is a one-time incident, victims are less likely to experience lasting harm. The identity of the perpetrator also makes a difference. If the perpetrator is a stranger, the outcomes of aggression tend to be less destructive than if the perpetrator is someone close to the victim. It is also encouraging that bullying and partner abuse prevention efforts are showing positive results (Olweus & Limber, 2010; Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2012; Whitaker et al., 2006). Finally, the reactions of significant others influence victims’ well-being and recovery. Victims who have friends and family members who believe their story and provide them with much needed support tend to do much better than those who do not.

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/11/bullying-social-exclusion-and-intimate-partner-violence/feed/0Bullying: When does it Stop?http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/11/bullying-when-does-it-stop/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/11/bullying-when-does-it-stop/#commentsSat, 10 Nov 2018 15:24:05 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=28010Bullying, or the ongoing and frequent misuse of power in a peer relationship, often in school, occurs throughout the world. Population base-rates are estimated to vary, averaging about 1/3 of pupils worldwide. Bullying can be thought of as being physical, psychological (including cyberbullying) or sexual, with overlap among the categories. Both boys and girls experience bullying at about the same rate, but the type of bullying and how it is experienced varies between boys and girls.

The harmful effects of ongoing bullying are well known and include: becoming a bully, suffering from increased health and mental health difficulties, attaining less education, and having decreased overall quality of life compared with those who are not bullied. One interesting study asked adults to reflect on their bullying experiences in school. Surprisingly, adults who had been bullied as teens reported effects that continued to worsen over the years compared with students who did not report being bullied. Depression and thoughts of suicide were common among the adults bullied as teens. Of course, the experience of being bullied is not prescriptive: many students learn coping strategies that lead them to resilience, but many do not.

A recurrent question arises: if bullying interferes so fundamentally with the ability to get along with others, why do people engage in it? We have learned from evolutionary biology that people overvalue information that signals danger. In fact, it takes about six positive messages to counteract one negative one. Young people especially, whose brains are still developing, tend to overstate personal sleights made to them and undervalue the statements and behavior they make toward others. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the response of a youth who has been caught in the act of denigrating another: it often takes several attempts to point out that what he or she has done is wrong, since the first impulse is to point to the behavior of the person to whom they have directed the infringement. Every parent and teacher can relate to this conversation and its inevitable response: “He started it.”

Programs to decrease bullying take many forms. School-based programs aim to address students, teachers, and school climate, to name a few. Some programs are based on expanding technology, which is ecologically valid for teens, the age group most affected by bullying. Laws have been enacted to prohibit bullying; however, much of the time, bullying is either not reported or not addressed effectively by those to whom it is reported. And, unfortunately, some adults encourage responses that will predictably exacerbate bullying: beat him up to teach him a lesson, go after her in cyberspace to show her not to mess with you.

The ultimate solution to bullying lies in a fundamental change in human behavior.

The ultimate solution to bullying lies in a fundamental change in human behavior. If we change the norms in all social settings, including schools, to promote positive social development to the exclusion of bullying interactions, bullying can be eradicated. Unfortunately, the counter message, that it is easy to get attention by disrupting and picking on others, coupled with the sense that one is entitled to respond to perceived indignities, suggests that we are far from making this Utopian dream a reality.

In the meantime, we would do well to model for our children interactions that are characterized by respect, humility and empathy. Teens can be taught to put themselves in the shoes of the other person and make decisions based on that new perspective. Efforts worldwide have used this technique to encourage more effective relating among young people living in high conflict areas. These lessons have power and help to build a more tolerant future.

Bullying is an important public health problem. Everyone who interacts with youth, including other youth, parents, teachers, coaches, school counselors, health and mental health professionals (nurses, pediatricians, emergency personnel, social workers, pediatricians and psychiatrists) has a responsibility to pay attention and take it seriously when we see it.